They are watermelons green on the outside ,red on the inside . After the berlin wall came down and communisms failed they fled to environmentalism.
They want to control people lives and redistribute the wealth . Climate change is the con and scare tactic .
Proof was on C-Span with those paranoid loons today.
To those on this site who think the greenies want free speech, you need your head examined.
They, the greenies, have routinely had my questions and answers sanctioned. I had sixteen in one day. Need there be further proof.
They are the ones who routinely, along with their sock puppets, put thumbs down or equivalent, so as to put true scientists answers into obscurity.
They are the ones who routinely use sock puppets.
They are the ones who clearly follow Goebbels'. Repeat a lie loud enough and often enough and it becomes the truth.
They are the ones who, when confronted with opposing facts, run and hide.
They are the ones who call out names rather than provide answers. (This is against Y!A rules. But somehow they get by with it.)
We had a greenie, just the other day on this site, who wanted a writer for Forbes fired because he dared speak out against AGW. (Dare we call it heresy.)
They are the ones who have often repeated lies of 97% of the scientists agree with AGW. This even in the face of it being refuted many many times. It is only 75 out of 77 highly screened scientists of dubious credentials.
They are the ones who ignore or demean the 31,000 scientists who dare certify that they do not think AGW is viable.
The evidence is there. Just take a good look.
Regarding
The only difference is that in Russia they either killed off dissenters or placed them in mental institutions. These Greenies are not that bad, YET.
EDIT: Jeff M:
It's a rum question Bolter, and my answer is: Yahoo answers performs a kind of censorship. Trolls are not allowed, advertisements are not allowed, ranting is not allowed... these are all part of the terms of service Hope you find the answer you're looking for Bolter!
Yahoo answers performs a kind of censorship. Trolls are not allowed, advertisements are not allowed, ranting is not allowed... these are all part of the terms of service. Now, is this set up to destroy "free speech?" Not at all, because there is an underlying principal that freedom cannot exist without discipline.
Without structure, freedom degrades into anarchy and might makes right. The one with the most money makes the rules? In this case it would be petrochemical companies (along with the coal industry) who are producing and supplying the very substance that is causing the global warming and from this gathering an enormous amount of wealth. They have also crafted the nature of our society. They want to sell their product without regard for the environmental consequences. They will use advertising to promote their perspectives and whatever control they can exercise to restrict our choices to their products. In a sense they have fired the first shot.
You were able to post your premise (disguised as a question) and as such disprove it at the same time. Confirming yet again the study that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers or conspiracy theorists.
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r .80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.
They aren't opposed to free speech, they're opposed to open debate, and have little to no analytical or problem solving skills. Oh they will listen, whether or not they comprehend is determined by whether or not what you are saying places man as the source of the problem and the solution limits man's freedom. Try it simply agree with some of their idiot ideas and you'll be delevated to serf status.
I've actually never met a warmon in real life they're not comfortable supporting their views in public unless they know they have fellow serfs around.
I have a feeling most people have no idea what CO2 is in the first place. A guy warned me other day about smoking next to a CO2 tank. When I said it is CO2 none of the other people around knew what the hell I was saying. Odds are these people are going to continue you to buy into alarmist myths and we are all going to suffer.
My experience is that almost all of the proponents of AGW I've encountered here and elsewhere are as much in favor of free speech as anyone else. I don't think accusing them of communist-style censorship is either fair or likely to get a positive response, but this is just one of several political labels that some people want to apply. Most proponents strongly object to that type of behavior as well as the dissemination of misleading statistics, data, science and other information that is often untrue and in some cases outright lies that are repeated over and over.
Objecting to that isn't censorship, and objecting to the publication of dubious studies or the statements/essays of people with equally dubious credentials-or often, no scientific credentials at all isn't censorship, either.
I don't pretend to be a scientist and never have, here or elsewhere; I have been very up front with my skepticism about the predicted outcomes of AGW, the significance of the role humans play in global warming, natural variables, and the economic and geopolitical advisability of applying many of the policies AGW believers support. I frankly don't recall anyone ever calling me a denier, or any insults from the proponent side for any statements I've made here. But I have been insulted repeatedly by the so-called 'Skeptics' and I have given back as good as I've gotten when I felt like it.
My opinion is most of the 'skeptics' are the ones who are trying to compromise free speech when it comes to science.
Have you ever seen a climate change 'believer' shouted down by a group of deniers? Do you refuse to listen to the evidence that supports the concept of man made climate change? Are you sure that both sides aren't similarly infringing on each other's freedom of speech? Before thinking up loaded questions and strawmen, consider that you might be just as guilty of the accusations you are flinging at others.
We do want free speech. We do not want stupid speech, ignorant speech, lying speech, and so on. Science is about learning and advancement. Science is not about believing in soem horrible conspiracy theory because of political or religious beliefs.
People hate being wrong and will do anything to convince themselves they were right despite all evidence to the contrary. Climatologists have written to each other hoping for increased temperatures rather than being proven wrong. They would rather see catastrophes occur than to be embarrassed... that how fragile peoples egos are. It happens in politics all the time (George Bush with WMD's, Obama in Afghanistan). I think most alarmists know deep down that temps are not going to increase as much as they believed. No dataset is even close to the IPCC's "best guess" of 0.3 C degree increase per decade, despite manipulation of data to increase present temps and decrease past ones. They have now switched to "Climate Change" in hopes of convincing people of their belief that CO2 is evil. Any "weird weather" is now immediately linked to "Climate Change". It's a desperate and pathetic attempt to stack the deck in their favor.
@Tim..."Have you ever seen a climate change 'believer' shouted down by a group of deniers?"
Not once. Could you give an example or provide a link?
You are dropping down to the level of AGW activist's by invoking Communism,
This has nothing to do with Communism or capitalism, it's about funding, careers, money and losing face.
If you allow free speech, you lay yourself open to be proved wrong, and that can't be allowed.
We need reasonable discussion, facts and proof on both sides, not name calling.
How can we expect anyone to take us seriously when we resort to extreme behaviour.
Seems to me they want the kind of censorship that is common in a communist country
dear Bolter please check out Agenda 21 this is a series of ideals to which we must all be forced to live by including pop control, the fear of global warming or climate change is simply a means to begin to control almost all we do and all we say, of course you will be allowed to have free sex to make up for the rest of the freedoms they want to take away. It is about making us in the west poor whilst making some elites very wealthy and taking away all our rights.
The problem with their postutation about man made climate change is people are catching up with the politics, people are able to learn for them self how the system works; Warmist keep using the word scientist simply because they are trying to con people into thinking there is knowledge the average person cannot grasp. Given all our power bills are raised not on behalf of climate but foriegn companies and the REC renewable Energy Certificates which agents friends of our pollies make millions out of means we have no longer any one reprsenting us in AUstralia. Our pollies are reps for foriegners before Australians interest. what is alarming is so many in this country go along with the sellout.
Because I can fully explain the general pattern of climate fluctuations and will not be allowed to, this this confirms they are against free speech. If you send me your email I will explain in fact it is very simple a blackboard and chalk is all I need to illustrate the basic pattern of the earths Climate. it is a geography subject I just happen to be rather good at real Geography at GRammar school.
But think why did the last ice age end the answer to this explains why climates have been changing for hundreds of millions of years. It is rather odd the same people who dont want explanations of climates to be told, also try to prevent people speaking on a whole range of topics which proves beyond doubt they are against free speech. that is speech which may show their theories about life are indeed mostly a myth as a evolutionist you can read my Book One Law, I can show without doubt they are the very opposite to progressive the pseudo socialists all over the world work together against democracy. But please check out Agenda 21 it is no myth check on Google unless people understand evolution they are ignorant of the way of progress but eh maybe those in the frozen part of the world may like it a tad warmer and Australians are fed up with the heat and this is why Australians fear the idea of being warmer indeed it is all emotoinaland psychologicabt very little by way of intellectual
We do want free speech, but that's not the problem. The problem is people using that right to spout nonsense - what's wrong with not offering an opinion unless you know what you're talking about?
The classic riposte of the American blockhead. "Yer a dam commeenist".
It is clear that something is warming the global climate. It is not clear if humans are responsible.
But closing your eyes to the possibility that we have something to do with it is just plain stupid.
And we all know, "Them commies is all ----well,dammit, they's all commies"
In what way is free speech suffering from people paying attention to climate change?
Sounds like you take things personally. If you can back up what you are saying with proof, they will still try and heckle you. If you believe in something and you want to say it in a public forum like this, you better get your facts straight and not worry about the ridicule or at least try and understand the negative reaction. Learn and keep moving forward. Know-it-alls don't know it all, but they will do what they can to dissuade you if they think you're wrong.
They don't want their lie exposed , they need as many as possible to believe to control us.
Science does not depend on your ignorance of it or of public life in general.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
Saying/repeating whatever one wants doesn't make it true.
Because it's their religion and for anyone to believe anything other than what they do is considered heresy.
It is denialists who want to jail honest scientists like James Hansen, just for speaking up.
there is free speech, but we quit teaching flat earth a long time ago.
Oh, they do want free speech, but only of that special variety championed by Herbert Marcuse: free speech for me but not for thee.
So, we get media types, like ex-CNN producer Peter Dykstra blasting the network for 'allowing' a skeptic to have air time:
"That means they are comfortable with allowing utterly discredited crackpots on the air like Marc Morano, who has been on there twice in the past six weeks. If you let Marc Morano have half of a show on climate change, someone who was utterly discredited, who was involved in the swift boat story, who worked for Rush Limbaugh... if you took that same standard that they used for this environment story and applied it to a medical story you would have to pair Sanjay Gupta up with a faith healer or a witch doctor every time he went on the air."
Hedi Cullen wants to have the certifications taken from on-air meteorologists who question the AGW line.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
Nobel Laureate William Happer was fired by Al Gore for not toeing the AGW line.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...
From Rob Gelspan:
“Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”
Here's a prominent warmist who wants Nuremburg trials for skeptics.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
Global Warming: The Chilling Effect on Free Speech.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...
House democrats refuse to allow Lord Monckton to appear before committee hearing alongside Al Gore.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Flashb...
This is a propaganda campaign. It will only work if they can succeed in preventing the audience from hearing disconfirming information. Thus, skeptics are demonized, discredited, attacked and prevented from speaking. Only one narrative is acceptable. They rationalize that this kind of censorship is somehow not precluded by the First Amendment.
From Gustav LeBon:
“The arousing of faith -- whether religious, political, or social, whether faith in a work, in a person, or an idea -- has always been the function of the great leaders of crowds, and it is on this account that their influence is always very great. Of all the forces at the disposal of humanity, faith has always been one of the most tremendous, and the gospel rightly attributes to it the power of moving mountains. To endow a man with faith is to multiply his strength tenfold. The great events of history have been brought about by obscure believers, who have had little beyond their faith in their favour. It is not by the aid of the learned or of philosophers, and still less of sceptics, that have been built up the great religions which have swayed the world, or the vast empires which have spread from one hemisphere to the other.”
“A person is not religious solely when he worships a divinity, but when he puts all the resources of his mind, the complete submission of his will, and the whole-souled ardour of fanaticism at the service of a cause or an individual who becomes the goal and guide of his thoughts and actions.”
“Intolerance and fanaticism are the necessary accompaniments of the religious sentiment. They are inevitably displayed by those who believe themselves in the possession of the secret of earthly or eternal happiness. These two characteristics are to be found in all men grouped together when they are inspired by a conviction of any kind.”
most warmers are communists
It's a Hippy Liberal thing.
